Kneel!

[Meriweather]

I would point out that the authors of the various parts of the Bible are unknown.

Yes. We covered that yesterday.

 

[Hollie]

Seems like something of a dilemma if you want to use the Bible in history classes in public school.

I do not wish to use the Bible in history classes. Haven't a clue where you came up with that. In public schools, history classes cover World History (Bible does not cover World History) and US History (something else the Bible does not cover.

It would be in violation of the establishment clause to use the Bible for course material in a public school. I can't think of any course not available to students that the Bible could be used for except Christian proselytizing.

 

[Meriweather]

It would be in violation of the establishment clause to use the Bible for course material in a public school. I can't think of any course not available to students that the Bible could be used for except Christian proselytizing.

I suppose not knowing the Bible very well could lead one to that conclusion. Too bad. It is a great book.

 

[Hollie]

It would be in violation of the establishment clause to use the Bible for course material in a public school. I can't think of any course not available to students that the Bible could be used for except Christian proselytizing.

I suppose not knowing the Bible very well could lead one to that conclusion. Too bad. It is a great book.

The Bible being a great book is an entirely subjective opinion. I find more truth, inspiration, lessons for life, etc., in Homer's iliad, "Moby Dick", Steinbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath", Fitzgerald's short stories, etc., as any supposed holy text.

I find a certain arrogance in your presumption of some profound insight into the ''proper understanding'' of the Bible when there is nothing particularly interesting about the text other than alleged ''holiness'' that one religion ascribes to it,

 

[Meriweather]

I find a certain arrogance in your presumption of some profound insight into the ''proper understanding'' of the Bible when there is nothing particularly interesting about the text other than alleged ''holiness'' that one religion ascribes to it,

I am not even speaking of insights, profound or otherwise--or holiness. I am speaking of hearing what people of an earlier age are conveying. They are offering their wisdom to us, their descendants.

As all you see in what I have offer is presumption, arrogance, proselytizing, and rage, I'll wish you well until the next time we might choose to enter another discussion.

 

[JoeB131]

Learn Hebrew if you wish to be more serious. I suspect you would rather be amused.

Not really. But let's say that the "original Hebrew" says something different.

How is it ALL of these translators have gotten it wrong for centuries? I mean, every last one of them, apparently?
We need to get Disney on that Translation, stat.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1.According to the novel “Red Sparrow,” the Russian’s intelligence services were exceptionally good at compromising, and co-opting Americans…even American agents, into working for them. And, there is some evidence for that, some spies having given up their values, heritage, upbringing for various rewards, or by certain threats.

But no nation, agency, organization is as good at it as American Leftists have been at forcing everyday Americans to, ….if I may paraphrase R.E.M., …agree to ‘losing their religion.’ …. swapping for the religion of the state, Militant Secularism.



Sometimes they’re really outspoken about it:

“Rahm Emanuel: Athletes Kneeling During National Anthem Akin to Kneeling at ‘Religious Services’ Rahm Emanuel: Athletes Kneeling During National Anthem Akin to Kneeling at ‘Religious Services’ - Non Perele - News Online



2. And lots of those who have succumbed practice ‘convert psychology, they ridicule traditional religion while bowing their head to their new religion, Militant Secularism. One denomination of MS religion is the cult of Darwinism. As much as it is trumpeted by Secularists, there is no proof of same, but, as they respond to that complaint….neither is there for God. Touché.

Faith is the mode for both traditional religion, and for Darwinism.

"Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches -- like the National Museum of Natural History.”
The Branding of a Heretic




3. “The secularists [that The New York Times, Katherine] Stewart represents just refuse to acknowledge that their religious beliefs are in fact religious beliefs, and of a far creepier and deadlier kind than Christians’.
….the belief that it is possible to fix the world by applying government pressure? That is not a belief that can be wholly validated by research or experience. In fact, research and experience both indicate that central planning usually makes life even more nasty, brutish, and short.

So what is this unfounded, undocumented, unprovable faith in government power to correct human psyches and behavior if not a religious (metaphysical) belief? It is also an unprovable and metaphysical belief about what a human is — a thing that can be “corrected” by politics and whose “error” is not intrinsic to itself. Again, these are all metaphysical, religious beliefs with no empirical basis or possibility of being fully empirically proven.

The secular, pagan, atheist types are the ones who claim religious assumptions are evil. They do so because they erroneously believe they are free from such assumptions. But in truth, no one is.””
Barr: The People Trying To 'Impose Their Values' Are 'Militant Secularists'



Call them atheists, or Militant Secularists..... they teach their religion in government school, don’t they.

They just can't stand any religion but theirs, Militant Secularism.


"Is This a Scene From Nazi Germany? No, It's the Portland 'Peaceful Protesters' Burning Bibles

... antifa rioters set a bonfire in front of the federal courthouse. Since they care so much about the death of George Floyd, they decided to burn Bibles. Seriously, they threw copies of the Bible on the fire.

Marxist critical theory encourages people to deconstruct various aspects of society — such as capitalism, science the nuclear family, the Judeo-Christian tradition, even expectations of politeness (as the Smithsonian briefly taught) — as examples of white oppression. This inspires an aimless and destructive revolution.

The Bibles that Portland rioters burned also inspired the abolitionist movement of the 1800s, a movement that culminated in the abolition of slavery. "

Is This a Scene From Nazi Germany? No, It's the Portland 'Peaceful Protesters' Burning Bibles

pjmedia.com

 

[JoeB131]

They just can't stand any religion but theirs, Militant Secularism.


"Is This a Scene From Nazi Germany? No, It's the Portland 'Peaceful Protesters' Burning Bibles

Oh, noes, not burning bibles.

Where will people get their supply of Bronze Age Superstitions from?

Honestly, this sounds kind of staged, and only the right wing media is reporting it, so it sounds kind of fishy

 

[irosie91]

They just can't stand any religion but theirs, Militant Secularism.


"Is This a Scene From Nazi Germany? No, It's the Portland 'Peaceful Protesters' Burning Bibles

Oh, noes, not burning bibles.

Where will people get their supply of Bronze Age Superstitions from?

Honestly, this sounds kind of staged, and only the right wing media is reporting it, so it sounds kind of fishy

I believe it-----I read the "black studies" propaganda way back in the 60s.

 

[LittleNipper]

I don’t see belief in Arks, talking snakes, people ascending to heaven on golden staircases or animal sacrifice per Santeria as necessarily the best thing to inundate schools with.

And that is precisely why the Bible needs to be taught in school: To move people beyond such a shallow view of the Bible and people of faith.

Suggesting the Bible needs to be taught in public school suggests a need to impose your beliefs on others. Would you propose that schools segregate Christians from non-Christians for Bible lessons? Who would teach the lessons? A Catholic Priest? A Minister? A Chaplain, Pastor?

They should do as they did in the past. There should be a daily reading from the Psalms and or Proverbs. The reading was done by any student who wished to volunteer, as was the flag held and/or the Pledge of Allegiance lead by any student who wished to volunteer. All one needs to read is a McGuffey Reader from the 19th century to see that there was an influence upon students that GOD was someone of consideration and not to simply ignore or never be exposed to... One could certainly come to one's own conclusions; however, such conclusions were not the indoctrinated end result of ignorance or exclusion for "political/legal" reasons on a part of a governmental failure at attempting to keep a wall of separation between education and religious freedom. In essence, science, mathematics, language, religion, philosophy, and art ----- are all a very important part of education that is being undermined and neglected --- because of a very fickle and narrow-minded society, who believe it's money that makes a difference and not character. The government has no business dictating educational practices or the manipulation of funding in order to promote its own humanistic scientological agenda.

Nothing in what you wrote suggests that public schools are not a place for academics while Sunday school is a place for religion.

As to religious freedom, the Constitution guarantees me freedom of religion which is by default, freedom from religion.

No, the Constitution guarantees you only freedom of worship. Which means that you get to choose the way you wish to worship GOD. And since there is freedom of worship, that means that you cannot stifle one's desire to proselytize, anymore then you can stifle one's freedom of speech. And I submit to you that it is impossible to philosophize without expressing moral attitudes that are directly influenced religiously. And so basically, freedom of speech, religion, and thought are stifled in public education because of people like yourself who wrongly feel that expression, thought, and presentation must be limited to only secular humanistic logic/rhetoric publicly.

You can worship your gods as you wish. What you can't do is expect the public school system to become a religious institution.

Prayer in School: 6 Cases Supreme Court Has Ruled On

The court cases challenging prayer in schools have been ongoing since the 1950s and '60s when the U.S. Supreme Court first ruled in favor of maintaining separation between church and state.

www.newsmax.com

I'm not asking public education to be religious. I do expect public education to be considerate and not hostile to religious thought. There have always been people who didn't wish the Bible to be read in school, because they felt to doing such might cause a student to come away with a different idea than what was expressed at home or at a religious institution where they attended. HOWEVER, that said, the truth is what education should strive to influence students to pursue and not to hide truth that some might find offensive. Education should NEVER teach what is unknown as known, and that goes especially for science. To claim the earth is billions of years old is not entirely correct. What should be expressed is that the makeup of various minerals, etc., seem to indicate vast age, but what might such also express, and is such plausible or inexcusable?

The atheistic approach is to believe that nature always existed and that problems are due to a belief in some god. The Christian approach is to believe GOD established nature and that problems are in some way due to a lack of trust in GOD. The honest scientific approach is to accept only as fact what can be observed and repeated. The truth be told, is that there is no possible way to prove that nature always existed, and certainly all problems are not the fault of GOD --- especially, if He doesn't exist ---- but certainly more likely the result of man's beliefs in general (whether "secular" or "religious") can bring about terrible consequences if they contradict nature. So, if GOD established nature, then to do that which contradicts GOD's law, will in fact be harmful to nature as well, and reveal itself in diseases, insufficient food, violence, wars, floods, earthquakes, and every sort of pestilence.

What I've just expressed doesn't seem the sort of thing that should be banned from any logically thinking institution of learning. However, for educators to insist to teach that the earth must be billions of years old, while not allowing consideration of extenuating circumstances ----- is establishing a false perception that everything that can be know is known and that there is nothing unknown which would upset the apple cart.

 

[Hollie]

I don’t see belief in Arks, talking snakes, people ascending to heaven on golden staircases or animal sacrifice per Santeria as necessarily the best thing to inundate schools with.

And that is precisely why the Bible needs to be taught in school: To move people beyond such a shallow view of the Bible and people of faith.

Suggesting the Bible needs to be taught in public school suggests a need to impose your beliefs on others. Would you propose that schools segregate Christians from non-Christians for Bible lessons? Who would teach the lessons? A Catholic Priest? A Minister? A Chaplain, Pastor?

They should do as they did in the past. There should be a daily reading from the Psalms and or Proverbs. The reading was done by any student who wished to volunteer, as was the flag held and/or the Pledge of Allegiance lead by any student who wished to volunteer. All one needs to read is a McGuffey Reader from the 19th century to see that there was an influence upon students that GOD was someone of consideration and not to simply ignore or never be exposed to... One could certainly come to one's own conclusions; however, such conclusions were not the indoctrinated end result of ignorance or exclusion for "political/legal" reasons on a part of a governmental failure at attempting to keep a wall of separation between education and religious freedom. In essence, science, mathematics, language, religion, philosophy, and art ----- are all a very important part of education that is being undermined and neglected --- because of a very fickle and narrow-minded society, who believe it's money that makes a difference and not character. The government has no business dictating educational practices or the manipulation of funding in order to promote its own humanistic scientological agenda.

Nothing in what you wrote suggests that public schools are not a place for academics while Sunday school is a place for religion.

As to religious freedom, the Constitution guarantees me freedom of religion which is by default, freedom from religion.

No, the Constitution guarantees you only freedom of worship. Which means that you get to choose the way you wish to worship GOD. And since there is freedom of worship, that means that you cannot stifle one's desire to proselytize, anymore then you can stifle one's freedom of speech. And I submit to you that it is impossible to philosophize without expressing moral attitudes that are directly influenced religiously. And so basically, freedom of speech, religion, and thought are stifled in public education because of people like yourself who wrongly feel that expression, thought, and presentation must be limited to only secular humanistic logic/rhetoric publicly.

You can worship your gods as you wish. What you can't do is expect the public school system to become a religious institution.

Prayer in School: 6 Cases Supreme Court Has Ruled On

The court cases challenging prayer in schools have been ongoing since the 1950s and '60s when the U.S. Supreme Court first ruled in favor of maintaining separation between church and state.

www.newsmax.com

I'm not asking public education to be religious. I do expect public education to be considerate and not hostile to religious thought. There have always been people who didn't wish the Bible to be read in school, because they felt to doing such might cause a student to come away with a different idea than what was expressed at home or at a religious institution where they attended. HOWEVER, that said, the truth is what education should strive to influence students to pursue and not to hide truth that some might find offensive. Education should NEVER teach what is unknown as known, and that goes especially for science. To claim the earth is billions of years old is not entirely correct. What should be expressed is that the makeup of various minerals, etc., seem to indicate vast age, but what might such also express, and is such plausible or inexcusable?

The atheistic approach is to believe that nature always existed and that problems are due to a belief in some god. The Christian approach is to believe GOD established nature and that problems are in some way due to a lack of trust in GOD. The honest scientific approach is to accept only as fact what can be observed and repeated. The truth be told, is that there is no possible way to prove that nature always existed, and certainly all problems are not the fault of GOD --- especially, if He doesn't exist ---- but certainly more likely the result of man's beliefs in general (whether "secular" or "religious") can bring about terrible consequences if they contradict nature. So, if GOD established nature, then to do that which contradicts GOD's law, will in fact be harmful to nature as well, and reveal itself in diseases, insufficient food, violence, wars, floods, earthquakes, and every sort of pestilence.

What I've just expressed doesn't seem the sort of thing that should be banned from any logically thinking institution of learning. However, for educators to insist to teach that the earth must be billions of years old, while not allowing consideration of extenuating circumstances ----- is establishing a false perception that everything that can be know is known and that there is nothing unknown which would upset the apple cart.

A few comments.
I don’t see any indication that the public school system is hostile to religion. As to people not wanting the Bible or any other religious text being read in public schools that’s only partly accurate. A student has every right to bring a religious text to school for their own use. The public has a Constitutional right to expect that public schools will not allow religious texts to form the basis of a class syllabus.

What part of the earth not being billions of years old is not correct?


I’m not aware that atheists believe “problems are due to a belief in some god”. I’m an atheist and I believe that problems in people’s lives can be due to everything from circumstances beyond our control to the decisions we make. I think that relying on the gods to fix one’s problems and blaming the gods for one’s poor choices are equally harmful.

Everyone makes mistakes and it’s often difficult to acknowledge that and to then accept responsibility for those mistakes. I don’t see religious people as any better or worse at that vs. non-religious people.

I agree, there is no way to prove that nature always existed. However, science has solid evidence that the laws of physics as we know them, and thus the form of nature, has existed since Planck time or Planck’s Wall which is an infinitesimally small fraction of time since the expansion of the universe. So, we have every reason to accept that nature has existed for nearly as long as the universe has existed, literally to within a fraction of a second.

I have no reason to accept that your god(s) or anyone else’s god(s) had anything to do with the existence of the universe. There are solid reasons to accept that intelligence and sentient biological life can emerge from the universe, as all the elements for that carbon based life are abundant in the universe. Nothing about the universe demonstrates a “need” or requirement to have come from one or more supernatural / metaphysical beings. The religionist has an added burden because you are left with having to account for life / sentient beings that have sprung up out of nature in any event. The other problem with the assertion of gods is that even if one or more gods are at the core of existence, that doesn't support a contention of your particular god(s).

The other problem to be accepted by the religionist is that if one or more gods established nature, then diseases, insufficient food, violence, wars, floods, earthquakes, and every sort of pestilence are, at least in part, a responsibility of those gods. Are the gods responsible for tornadoes? Yes. They established the rotation of the planet and convection which create twisters.

I’m not clear regarding your comment: “...educators to insist to teach that the earth must be billions of years old, while not allowing consideration of extenuating circumstances”. Outside of creation ministries, there is no doubt among the relevant science community about the age of the planet, billions (4.5 +/-) of years old. I suspect by “extenuating circumstances”, you may allude to Biblical literalism about a 6,000 year old planet. I honestly don’t see that as any sort of argument.

 

[LittleNipper]

I don’t see belief in Arks, talking snakes, people ascending to heaven on golden staircases or animal sacrifice per Santeria as necessarily the best thing to inundate schools with.

And that is precisely why the Bible needs to be taught in school: To move people beyond such a shallow view of the Bible and people of faith.

Suggesting the Bible needs to be taught in public school suggests a need to impose your beliefs on others. Would you propose that schools segregate Christians from non-Christians for Bible lessons? Who would teach the lessons? A Catholic Priest? A Minister? A Chaplain, Pastor?

They should do as they did in the past. There should be a daily reading from the Psalms and or Proverbs. The reading was done by any student who wished to volunteer, as was the flag held and/or the Pledge of Allegiance lead by any student who wished to volunteer. All one needs to read is a McGuffey Reader from the 19th century to see that there was an influence upon students that GOD was someone of consideration and not to simply ignore or never be exposed to... One could certainly come to one's own conclusions; however, such conclusions were not the indoctrinated end result of ignorance or exclusion for "political/legal" reasons on a part of a governmental failure at attempting to keep a wall of separation between education and religious freedom. In essence, science, mathematics, language, religion, philosophy, and art ----- are all a very important part of education that is being undermined and neglected --- because of a very fickle and narrow-minded society, who believe it's money that makes a difference and not character. The government has no business dictating educational practices or the manipulation of funding in order to promote its own humanistic scientological agenda.

Nothing in what you wrote suggests that public schools are not a place for academics while Sunday school is a place for religion.

As to religious freedom, the Constitution guarantees me freedom of religion which is by default, freedom from religion.

No, the Constitution guarantees you only freedom of worship. Which means that you get to choose the way you wish to worship GOD. And since there is freedom of worship, that means that you cannot stifle one's desire to proselytize, anymore then you can stifle one's freedom of speech. And I submit to you that it is impossible to philosophize without expressing moral attitudes that are directly influenced religiously. And so basically, freedom of speech, religion, and thought are stifled in public education because of people like yourself who wrongly feel that expression, thought, and presentation must be limited to only secular humanistic logic/rhetoric publicly.

You can worship your gods as you wish. What you can't do is expect the public school system to become a religious institution.

Prayer in School: 6 Cases Supreme Court Has Ruled On

The court cases challenging prayer in schools have been ongoing since the 1950s and '60s when the U.S. Supreme Court first ruled in favor of maintaining separation between church and state.

www.newsmax.com

I'm not asking public education to be religious. I do expect public education to be considerate and not hostile to religious thought. There have always been people who didn't wish the Bible to be read in school, because they felt to doing such might cause a student to come away with a different idea than what was expressed at home or at a religious institution where they attended. HOWEVER, that said, the truth is what education should strive to influence students to pursue and not to hide truth that some might find offensive. Education should NEVER teach what is unknown as known, and that goes especially for science. To claim the earth is billions of years old is not entirely correct. What should be expressed is that the makeup of various minerals, etc., seem to indicate vast age, but what might such also express, and is such plausible or inexcusable?

The atheistic approach is to believe that nature always existed and that problems are due to a belief in some god. The Christian approach is to believe GOD established nature and that problems are in some way due to a lack of trust in GOD. The honest scientific approach is to accept only as fact what can be observed and repeated. The truth be told, is that there is no possible way to prove that nature always existed, and certainly all problems are not the fault of GOD --- especially, if He doesn't exist ---- but certainly more likely the result of man's beliefs in general (whether "secular" or "religious") can bring about terrible consequences if they contradict nature. So, if GOD established nature, then to do that which contradicts GOD's law, will in fact be harmful to nature as well, and reveal itself in diseases, insufficient food, violence, wars, floods, earthquakes, and every sort of pestilence.

What I've just expressed doesn't seem the sort of thing that should be banned from any logically thinking institution of learning. However, for educators to insist to teach that the earth must be billions of years old, while not allowing consideration of extenuating circumstances ----- is establishing a false perception that everything that can be know is known and that there is nothing unknown which would upset the apple cart.

A few comments.
I don’t see any indication that the public school system is hostile to religion. As to people not wanting the Bible or any other religious text being read in public schools that’s only partly accurate. A student has every right to bring a religious text to school for their own use. The public has a Constitutional right to expect that public schools will not allow religious texts to form the basis of a class syllabus.

What part of the earth not being billions of years old is not correct?


I’m not aware that atheists believe “problems are due to a belief in some god”. I’m an atheist and I believe that problems in people’s lives can be due to everything from circumstances beyond our control to the decisions we make. I think that relying on the gods to fix one’s problems and blaming the gods for one’s poor choices are equally harmful.

Everyone makes mistakes and it’s often difficult to acknowledge that and to then accept responsibility for those mistakes. I don’t see religious people as any better or worse at that vs. non-religious people.

I agree, there is no way to prove that nature always existed. However, science has solid evidence that the laws of physics as we know them, and thus the form of nature, has existed since Planck time or Planck’s Wall which is an infinitesimally small fraction of time since the expansion of the universe. So, we have every reason to accept that nature has existed for nearly as long as the universe has existed, literally to within a fraction of a second.

I have no reason to accept that your god(s) or anyone else’s god(s) had anything to do with the existence of the universe. There are solid reasons to accept that intelligence and sentient biological life can emerge from the universe, as all the elements for that carbon based life are abundant in the universe. Nothing about the universe demonstrates a “need” or requirement to have come from one or more supernatural / metaphysical beings. The religionist has an added burden because you are left with having to account for life / sentient beings that have sprung up out of nature in any event. The other problem with the assertion of gods is that even if one or more gods are at the core of existence, that doesn't support a contention of your particular god(s).

The other problem to be accepted by the religionist is that if one or more gods established nature, then diseases, insufficient food, violence, wars, floods, earthquakes, and every sort of pestilence are, at least in part, a responsibility of those gods. Are the gods responsible for tornadoes? Yes. They established the rotation of the planet and convection which create twisters.

I’m not clear regarding your comment: “...educators to insist to teach that the earth must be billions of years old, while not allowing consideration of extenuating circumstances”. Outside of creation ministries, there is no doubt among the relevant science community about the age of the planet, billions (4.5 +/-) of years old. I suspect by “extenuating circumstances”, you may allude to Biblical liberalism about a 6,000 year old planet. I honestly don’t see that as any sort of argument.

If GOD exists, can HE grow a tree to 100 feet tall in one week, one day, one hour? Well, of course GOD could. And if GOD's intention was to create a hospitable place for man to enjoy, I see no unethical reason why GOD couldn't or shouldn't do such a thing. Do we know with total certainty that GOD had to take billions of years to fabricate this or any other object in the solar system? And could not a worldwide Flood not mix up materials, redistribute them, and sift them to cause some confusion? I know that studies of the Mt. St. Helen's eruption answered quite a lot of such speculation to the affirmative. There have been studies on hydraulic sorting that have proved to be very eye opening. The Grand Canyon didn't need 100's of millions of years to form. Deserts can form as the result of being inundated by silt or sand --- why not from a collection of flood eroded minerals that has been scoured away from other areas?

And since an atheist most certainly can explain his formula for how nature could have brought about things, it shouldn't be left to the "Christian" student to reveal possible issues, when there are most likely Christian educators who already have their misgivings but are unable to elude to such convictions without a serious threat to their tenure.

 

[Hollie]

I don’t see belief in Arks, talking snakes, people ascending to heaven on golden staircases or animal sacrifice per Santeria as necessarily the best thing to inundate schools with.

And that is precisely why the Bible needs to be taught in school: To move people beyond such a shallow view of the Bible and people of faith.

Suggesting the Bible needs to be taught in public school suggests a need to impose your beliefs on others. Would you propose that schools segregate Christians from non-Christians for Bible lessons? Who would teach the lessons? A Catholic Priest? A Minister? A Chaplain, Pastor?

They should do as they did in the past. There should be a daily reading from the Psalms and or Proverbs. The reading was done by any student who wished to volunteer, as was the flag held and/or the Pledge of Allegiance lead by any student who wished to volunteer. All one needs to read is a McGuffey Reader from the 19th century to see that there was an influence upon students that GOD was someone of consideration and not to simply ignore or never be exposed to... One could certainly come to one's own conclusions; however, such conclusions were not the indoctrinated end result of ignorance or exclusion for "political/legal" reasons on a part of a governmental failure at attempting to keep a wall of separation between education and religious freedom. In essence, science, mathematics, language, religion, philosophy, and art ----- are all a very important part of education that is being undermined and neglected --- because of a very fickle and narrow-minded society, who believe it's money that makes a difference and not character. The government has no business dictating educational practices or the manipulation of funding in order to promote its own humanistic scientological agenda.

Nothing in what you wrote suggests that public schools are not a place for academics while Sunday school is a place for religion.

As to religious freedom, the Constitution guarantees me freedom of religion which is by default, freedom from religion.

No, the Constitution guarantees you only freedom of worship. Which means that you get to choose the way you wish to worship GOD. And since there is freedom of worship, that means that you cannot stifle one's desire to proselytize, anymore then you can stifle one's freedom of speech. And I submit to you that it is impossible to philosophize without expressing moral attitudes that are directly influenced religiously. And so basically, freedom of speech, religion, and thought are stifled in public education because of people like yourself who wrongly feel that expression, thought, and presentation must be limited to only secular humanistic logic/rhetoric publicly.

You can worship your gods as you wish. What you can't do is expect the public school system to become a religious institution.

Prayer in School: 6 Cases Supreme Court Has Ruled On

The court cases challenging prayer in schools have been ongoing since the 1950s and '60s when the U.S. Supreme Court first ruled in favor of maintaining separation between church and state.

www.newsmax.com

I'm not asking public education to be religious. I do expect public education to be considerate and not hostile to religious thought. There have always been people who didn't wish the Bible to be read in school, because they felt to doing such might cause a student to come away with a different idea than what was expressed at home or at a religious institution where they attended. HOWEVER, that said, the truth is what education should strive to influence students to pursue and not to hide truth that some might find offensive. Education should NEVER teach what is unknown as known, and that goes especially for science. To claim the earth is billions of years old is not entirely correct. What should be expressed is that the makeup of various minerals, etc., seem to indicate vast age, but what might such also express, and is such plausible or inexcusable?

The atheistic approach is to believe that nature always existed and that problems are due to a belief in some god. The Christian approach is to believe GOD established nature and that problems are in some way due to a lack of trust in GOD. The honest scientific approach is to accept only as fact what can be observed and repeated. The truth be told, is that there is no possible way to prove that nature always existed, and certainly all problems are not the fault of GOD --- especially, if He doesn't exist ---- but certainly more likely the result of man's beliefs in general (whether "secular" or "religious") can bring about terrible consequences if they contradict nature. So, if GOD established nature, then to do that which contradicts GOD's law, will in fact be harmful to nature as well, and reveal itself in diseases, insufficient food, violence, wars, floods, earthquakes, and every sort of pestilence.

What I've just expressed doesn't seem the sort of thing that should be banned from any logically thinking institution of learning. However, for educators to insist to teach that the earth must be billions of years old, while not allowing consideration of extenuating circumstances ----- is establishing a false perception that everything that can be know is known and that there is nothing unknown which would upset the apple cart.

A few comments.
I don’t see any indication that the public school system is hostile to religion. As to people not wanting the Bible or any other religious text being read in public schools that’s only partly accurate. A student has every right to bring a religious text to school for their own use. The public has a Constitutional right to expect that public schools will not allow religious texts to form the basis of a class syllabus.

What part of the earth not being billions of years old is not correct?


I’m not aware that atheists believe “problems are due to a belief in some god”. I’m an atheist and I believe that problems in people’s lives can be due to everything from circumstances beyond our control to the decisions we make. I think that relying on the gods to fix one’s problems and blaming the gods for one’s poor choices are equally harmful.

Everyone makes mistakes and it’s often difficult to acknowledge that and to then accept responsibility for those mistakes. I don’t see religious people as any better or worse at that vs. non-religious people.

I agree, there is no way to prove that nature always existed. However, science has solid evidence that the laws of physics as we know them, and thus the form of nature, has existed since Planck time or Planck’s Wall which is an infinitesimally small fraction of time since the expansion of the universe. So, we have every reason to accept that nature has existed for nearly as long as the universe has existed, literally to within a fraction of a second.

I have no reason to accept that your god(s) or anyone else’s god(s) had anything to do with the existence of the universe. There are solid reasons to accept that intelligence and sentient biological life can emerge from the universe, as all the elements for that carbon based life are abundant in the universe. Nothing about the universe demonstrates a “need” or requirement to have come from one or more supernatural / metaphysical beings. The religionist has an added burden because you are left with having to account for life / sentient beings that have sprung up out of nature in any event. The other problem with the assertion of gods is that even if one or more gods are at the core of existence, that doesn't support a contention of your particular god(s).

The other problem to be accepted by the religionist is that if one or more gods established nature, then diseases, insufficient food, violence, wars, floods, earthquakes, and every sort of pestilence are, at least in part, a responsibility of those gods. Are the gods responsible for tornadoes? Yes. They established the rotation of the planet and convection which create twisters.

I’m not clear regarding your comment: “...educators to insist to teach that the earth must be billions of years old, while not allowing consideration of extenuating circumstances”. Outside of creation ministries, there is no doubt among the relevant science community about the age of the planet, billions (4.5 +/-) of years old. I suspect by “extenuating circumstances”, you may allude to Biblical liberalism about a 6,000 year old planet. I honestly don’t see that as any sort of argument.

If GOD exists, can HE grow a tree to 100 feet tall in one week, one day, one hour? Well, of course GOD could. And if GOD's intention was to create a hospitable place for man to enjoy, I see no unethical reason why GOD couldn't or shouldn't do such a thing. Do we know with total certainty that GOD had to take billions of years to fabricate this or any other object in the solar system? And could not a worldwide Flood not mix up materials, redistribute them, and sift them to cause some confusion? I know that studies of the Mt. St. Helen's eruption answered quite a lot of such speculation to the affirmative. There have been studies on hydraulic sorting that have proved to be very eye opening. The Grand Canyon didn't need 100's of millions of years to form. Deserts can form as the result of being inundated by silt or sand --- why not from a collection of flood eroded minerals that has been scoured away from other areas?

And since an atheist most certainly can explain his formula for how nature could have brought about things, it shouldn't be left to the "Christian" student to reveal possible issues, when there are most likely Christian educators who already have their misgivings but are unable to elude to such convictions without a serious threat to their tenure.

I agree. If gods exist they can do all the things you describe. However, the burden of proof for the existence of a god or gods is entirely on the shoulders of the person making the affirmative claim. It is possible to demonstrate the existence of something. It is not possible to demonstrate the non-existence of something.

It is a profound discomfort to traditional religions that as science has progressed, the opposite face of the coin has been the fact that gods have less and less to do. While science cannot "disprove" god, it has certainly eliminated evidences for gods one at a time.

I agree that a worldwide Flood could mix up materials, redistribute them. However, there being no evidence of a worldwide flood makes that argument untenable.

The Grand Canyon happened so Noah could run the rapids in his boat is not an argument. What you're referring to are youtube videos by Steve Austin representing the ICR who has some some rather "laugh till you cry" notions of geology. Austin has been an active promoter of a Noah's flood interpretation of the geology of the Grand Canyon.

It's just awful,

 

[LittleNipper]

I don’t see belief in Arks, talking snakes, people ascending to heaven on golden staircases or animal sacrifice per Santeria as necessarily the best thing to inundate schools with.

And that is precisely why the Bible needs to be taught in school: To move people beyond such a shallow view of the Bible and people of faith.

Suggesting the Bible needs to be taught in public school suggests a need to impose your beliefs on others. Would you propose that schools segregate Christians from non-Christians for Bible lessons? Who would teach the lessons? A Catholic Priest? A Minister? A Chaplain, Pastor?

They should do as they did in the past. There should be a daily reading from the Psalms and or Proverbs. The reading was done by any student who wished to volunteer, as was the flag held and/or the Pledge of Allegiance lead by any student who wished to volunteer. All one needs to read is a McGuffey Reader from the 19th century to see that there was an influence upon students that GOD was someone of consideration and not to simply ignore or never be exposed to... One could certainly come to one's own conclusions; however, such conclusions were not the indoctrinated end result of ignorance or exclusion for "political/legal" reasons on a part of a governmental failure at attempting to keep a wall of separation between education and religious freedom. In essence, science, mathematics, language, religion, philosophy, and art ----- are all a very important part of education that is being undermined and neglected --- because of a very fickle and narrow-minded society, who believe it's money that makes a difference and not character. The government has no business dictating educational practices or the manipulation of funding in order to promote its own humanistic scientological agenda.

Nothing in what you wrote suggests that public schools are not a place for academics while Sunday school is a place for religion.

As to religious freedom, the Constitution guarantees me freedom of religion which is by default, freedom from religion.

No, the Constitution guarantees you only freedom of worship. Which means that you get to choose the way you wish to worship GOD. And since there is freedom of worship, that means that you cannot stifle one's desire to proselytize, anymore then you can stifle one's freedom of speech. And I submit to you that it is impossible to philosophize without expressing moral attitudes that are directly influenced religiously. And so basically, freedom of speech, religion, and thought are stifled in public education because of people like yourself who wrongly feel that expression, thought, and presentation must be limited to only secular humanistic logic/rhetoric publicly.

You can worship your gods as you wish. What you can't do is expect the public school system to become a religious institution.

Prayer in School: 6 Cases Supreme Court Has Ruled On

The court cases challenging prayer in schools have been ongoing since the 1950s and '60s when the U.S. Supreme Court first ruled in favor of maintaining separation between church and state.

www.newsmax.com

I'm not asking public education to be religious. I do expect public education to be considerate and not hostile to religious thought. There have always been people who didn't wish the Bible to be read in school, because they felt to doing such might cause a student to come away with a different idea than what was expressed at home or at a religious institution where they attended. HOWEVER, that said, the truth is what education should strive to influence students to pursue and not to hide truth that some might find offensive. Education should NEVER teach what is unknown as known, and that goes especially for science. To claim the earth is billions of years old is not entirely correct. What should be expressed is that the makeup of various minerals, etc., seem to indicate vast age, but what might such also express, and is such plausible or inexcusable?

The atheistic approach is to believe that nature always existed and that problems are due to a belief in some god. The Christian approach is to believe GOD established nature and that problems are in some way due to a lack of trust in GOD. The honest scientific approach is to accept only as fact what can be observed and repeated. The truth be told, is that there is no possible way to prove that nature always existed, and certainly all problems are not the fault of GOD --- especially, if He doesn't exist ---- but certainly more likely the result of man's beliefs in general (whether "secular" or "religious") can bring about terrible consequences if they contradict nature. So, if GOD established nature, then to do that which contradicts GOD's law, will in fact be harmful to nature as well, and reveal itself in diseases, insufficient food, violence, wars, floods, earthquakes, and every sort of pestilence.

What I've just expressed doesn't seem the sort of thing that should be banned from any logically thinking institution of learning. However, for educators to insist to teach that the earth must be billions of years old, while not allowing consideration of extenuating circumstances ----- is establishing a false perception that everything that can be know is known and that there is nothing unknown which would upset the apple cart.

A few comments.
I don’t see any indication that the public school system is hostile to religion. As to people not wanting the Bible or any other religious text being read in public schools that’s only partly accurate. A student has every right to bring a religious text to school for their own use. The public has a Constitutional right to expect that public schools will not allow religious texts to form the basis of a class syllabus.

What part of the earth not being billions of years old is not correct?


I’m not aware that atheists believe “problems are due to a belief in some god”. I’m an atheist and I believe that problems in people’s lives can be due to everything from circumstances beyond our control to the decisions we make. I think that relying on the gods to fix one’s problems and blaming the gods for one’s poor choices are equally harmful.

Everyone makes mistakes and it’s often difficult to acknowledge that and to then accept responsibility for those mistakes. I don’t see religious people as any better or worse at that vs. non-religious people.

I agree, there is no way to prove that nature always existed. However, science has solid evidence that the laws of physics as we know them, and thus the form of nature, has existed since Planck time or Planck’s Wall which is an infinitesimally small fraction of time since the expansion of the universe. So, we have every reason to accept that nature has existed for nearly as long as the universe has existed, literally to within a fraction of a second.

I have no reason to accept that your god(s) or anyone else’s god(s) had anything to do with the existence of the universe. There are solid reasons to accept that intelligence and sentient biological life can emerge from the universe, as all the elements for that carbon based life are abundant in the universe. Nothing about the universe demonstrates a “need” or requirement to have come from one or more supernatural / metaphysical beings. The religionist has an added burden because you are left with having to account for life / sentient beings that have sprung up out of nature in any event. The other problem with the assertion of gods is that even if one or more gods are at the core of existence, that doesn't support a contention of your particular god(s).

The other problem to be accepted by the religionist is that if one or more gods established nature, then diseases, insufficient food, violence, wars, floods, earthquakes, and every sort of pestilence are, at least in part, a responsibility of those gods. Are the gods responsible for tornadoes? Yes. They established the rotation of the planet and convection which create twisters.

I’m not clear regarding your comment: “...educators to insist to teach that the earth must be billions of years old, while not allowing consideration of extenuating circumstances”. Outside of creation ministries, there is no doubt among the relevant science community about the age of the planet, billions (4.5 +/-) of years old. I suspect by “extenuating circumstances”, you may allude to Biblical liberalism about a 6,000 year old planet. I honestly don’t see that as any sort of argument.

If GOD exists, can HE grow a tree to 100 feet tall in one week, one day, one hour? Well, of course GOD could. And if GOD's intention was to create a hospitable place for man to enjoy, I see no unethical reason why GOD couldn't or shouldn't do such a thing. Do we know with total certainty that GOD had to take billions of years to fabricate this or any other object in the solar system? And could not a worldwide Flood not mix up materials, redistribute them, and sift them to cause some confusion? I know that studies of the Mt. St. Helen's eruption answered quite a lot of such speculation to the affirmative. There have been studies on hydraulic sorting that have proved to be very eye opening. The Grand Canyon didn't need 100's of millions of years to form. Deserts can form as the result of being inundated by silt or sand --- why not from a collection of flood eroded minerals that has been scoured away from other areas?

And since an atheist most certainly can explain his formula for how nature could have brought about things, it shouldn't be left to the "Christian" student to reveal possible issues, when there are most likely Christian educators who already have their misgivings but are unable to elude to such convictions without a serious threat to their tenure.

I agree. If gods exist they can do all the things you describe. However, the burden of proof for the existence of a god or gods is entirely on the shoulders of the person making the affirmative claim. It is possible to demonstrate the existence of something. It is not possible to demonstrate the non-existence of something.

It is a profound discomfort to traditional religions that as science has progressed, the opposite face of the coin has been the fact that gods have less and less to do. While science cannot "disprove" god, it has certainly eliminated evidences for gods one at a time.

I agree that a worldwide Flood could mix up materials, redistribute them. However, there being no evidence of a worldwide flood makes that argument untenable.

The Grand Canyon happened so Noah could run the rapids in his boat is not an argument. What you're referring to are youtube videos by Steve Austin representing the ICR who has some some rather "laugh till you cry" notions of geology. Austin has been an active promoter of a Noah's flood interpretation of the geology of the Grand Canyon.

It's just awful,

Consider the following: The Age of the Earth - The Grand Canyon as a Creationist Clock: Ryan McGillivray

 

[LittleNipper]

Regarding the Grand Canyon, you may wish to consider the following: Top 5 Creationist Claims About Grand Canyon: #4 Grand Canyon Rocks Were Made By Noah’s Flood (Part I) | National Center for Science Education

 

[Taz]

I don’t see belief in Arks, talking snakes, people ascending to heaven on golden staircases or animal sacrifice per Santeria as necessarily the best thing to inundate schools with.

And that is precisely why the Bible needs to be taught in school: To move people beyond such a shallow view of the Bible and people of faith.

Suggesting the Bible needs to be taught in public school suggests a need to impose your beliefs on others. Would you propose that schools segregate Christians from non-Christians for Bible lessons? Who would teach the lessons? A Catholic Priest? A Minister? A Chaplain, Pastor?

They should do as they did in the past. There should be a daily reading from the Psalms and or Proverbs. The reading was done by any student who wished to volunteer, as was the flag held and/or the Pledge of Allegiance lead by any student who wished to volunteer. All one needs to read is a McGuffey Reader from the 19th century to see that there was an influence upon students that GOD was someone of consideration and not to simply ignore or never be exposed to... One could certainly come to one's own conclusions; however, such conclusions were not the indoctrinated end result of ignorance or exclusion for "political/legal" reasons on a part of a governmental failure at attempting to keep a wall of separation between education and religious freedom. In essence, science, mathematics, language, religion, philosophy, and art ----- are all a very important part of education that is being undermined and neglected --- because of a very fickle and narrow-minded society, who believe it's money that makes a difference and not character. The government has no business dictating educational practices or the manipulation of funding in order to promote its own humanistic scientological agenda.

Nothing in what you wrote suggests that public schools are not a place for academics while Sunday school is a place for religion.

As to religious freedom, the Constitution guarantees me freedom of religion which is by default, freedom from religion.

No, the Constitution guarantees you only freedom of worship. Which means that you get to choose the way you wish to worship GOD. And since there is freedom of worship, that means that you cannot stifle one's desire to proselytize, anymore then you can stifle one's freedom of speech. And I submit to you that it is impossible to philosophize without expressing moral attitudes that are directly influenced religiously. And so basically, freedom of speech, religion, and thought are stifled in public education because of people like yourself who wrongly feel that expression, thought, and presentation must be limited to only secular humanistic logic/rhetoric publicly.

You can worship your gods as you wish. What you can't do is expect the public school system to become a religious institution.

Prayer in School: 6 Cases Supreme Court Has Ruled On

The court cases challenging prayer in schools have been ongoing since the 1950s and '60s when the U.S. Supreme Court first ruled in favor of maintaining separation between church and state.

www.newsmax.com

I'm not asking public education to be religious. I do expect public education to be considerate and not hostile to religious thought. There have always been people who didn't wish the Bible to be read in school, because they felt to doing such might cause a student to come away with a different idea than what was expressed at home or at a religious institution where they attended. HOWEVER, that said, the truth is what education should strive to influence students to pursue and not to hide truth that some might find offensive. Education should NEVER teach what is unknown as known, and that goes especially for science. To claim the earth is billions of years old is not entirely correct. What should be expressed is that the makeup of various minerals, etc., seem to indicate vast age, but what might such also express, and is such plausible or inexcusable?

The atheistic approach is to believe that nature always existed and that problems are due to a belief in some god. The Christian approach is to believe GOD established nature and that problems are in some way due to a lack of trust in GOD. The honest scientific approach is to accept only as fact what can be observed and repeated. The truth be told, is that there is no possible way to prove that nature always existed, and certainly all problems are not the fault of GOD --- especially, if He doesn't exist ---- but certainly more likely the result of man's beliefs in general (whether "secular" or "religious") can bring about terrible consequences if they contradict nature. So, if GOD established nature, then to do that which contradicts GOD's law, will in fact be harmful to nature as well, and reveal itself in diseases, insufficient food, violence, wars, floods, earthquakes, and every sort of pestilence.

What I've just expressed doesn't seem the sort of thing that should be banned from any logically thinking institution of learning. However, for educators to insist to teach that the earth must be billions of years old, while not allowing consideration of extenuating circumstances ----- is establishing a false perception that everything that can be know is known and that there is nothing unknown which would upset the apple cart.

A few comments.
I don’t see any indication that the public school system is hostile to religion. As to people not wanting the Bible or any other religious text being read in public schools that’s only partly accurate. A student has every right to bring a religious text to school for their own use. The public has a Constitutional right to expect that public schools will not allow religious texts to form the basis of a class syllabus.

What part of the earth not being billions of years old is not correct?


I’m not aware that atheists believe “problems are due to a belief in some god”. I’m an atheist and I believe that problems in people’s lives can be due to everything from circumstances beyond our control to the decisions we make. I think that relying on the gods to fix one’s problems and blaming the gods for one’s poor choices are equally harmful.

Everyone makes mistakes and it’s often difficult to acknowledge that and to then accept responsibility for those mistakes. I don’t see religious people as any better or worse at that vs. non-religious people.

I agree, there is no way to prove that nature always existed. However, science has solid evidence that the laws of physics as we know them, and thus the form of nature, has existed since Planck time or Planck’s Wall which is an infinitesimally small fraction of time since the expansion of the universe. So, we have every reason to accept that nature has existed for nearly as long as the universe has existed, literally to within a fraction of a second.

I have no reason to accept that your god(s) or anyone else’s god(s) had anything to do with the existence of the universe. There are solid reasons to accept that intelligence and sentient biological life can emerge from the universe, as all the elements for that carbon based life are abundant in the universe. Nothing about the universe demonstrates a “need” or requirement to have come from one or more supernatural / metaphysical beings. The religionist has an added burden because you are left with having to account for life / sentient beings that have sprung up out of nature in any event. The other problem with the assertion of gods is that even if one or more gods are at the core of existence, that doesn't support a contention of your particular god(s).

The other problem to be accepted by the religionist is that if one or more gods established nature, then diseases, insufficient food, violence, wars, floods, earthquakes, and every sort of pestilence are, at least in part, a responsibility of those gods. Are the gods responsible for tornadoes? Yes. They established the rotation of the planet and convection which create twisters.

I’m not clear regarding your comment: “...educators to insist to teach that the earth must be billions of years old, while not allowing consideration of extenuating circumstances”. Outside of creation ministries, there is no doubt among the relevant science community about the age of the planet, billions (4.5 +/-) of years old. I suspect by “extenuating circumstances”, you may allude to Biblical liberalism about a 6,000 year old planet. I honestly don’t see that as any sort of argument.

If GOD exists, can HE grow a tree to 100 feet tall in one week, one day, one hour? Well, of course GOD could. And if GOD's intention was to create a hospitable place for man to enjoy, I see no unethical reason why GOD couldn't or shouldn't do such a thing. Do we know with total certainty that GOD had to take billions of years to fabricate this or any other object in the solar system? And could not a worldwide Flood not mix up materials, redistribute them, and sift them to cause some confusion? I know that studies of the Mt. St. Helen's eruption answered quite a lot of such speculation to the affirmative. There have been studies on hydraulic sorting that have proved to be very eye opening. The Grand Canyon didn't need 100's of millions of years to form. Deserts can form as the result of being inundated by silt or sand --- why not from a collection of flood eroded minerals that has been scoured away from other areas?

And since an atheist most certainly can explain his formula for how nature could have brought about things, it shouldn't be left to the "Christian" student to reveal possible issues, when there are most likely Christian educators who already have their misgivings but are unable to elude to such convictions without a serious threat to their tenure.

I agree. If gods exist they can do all the things you describe. However, the burden of proof for the existence of a god or gods is entirely on the shoulders of the person making the affirmative claim. It is possible to demonstrate the existence of something. It is not possible to demonstrate the non-existence of something.

It is a profound discomfort to traditional religions that as science has progressed, the opposite face of the coin has been the fact that gods have less and less to do. While science cannot "disprove" god, it has certainly eliminated evidences for gods one at a time.

I agree that a worldwide Flood could mix up materials, redistribute them. However, there being no evidence of a worldwide flood makes that argument untenable.

The Grand Canyon happened so Noah could run the rapids in his boat is not an argument. What you're referring to are youtube videos by Steve Austin representing the ICR who has some some rather "laugh till you cry" notions of geology. Austin has been an active promoter of a Noah's flood interpretation of the geology of the Grand Canyon.

It's just awful,

Consider the following: The Age of the Earth - The Grand Canyon as a Creationist Clock: Ryan McGillivray

The guy offers no proof for what they call theories. It's only backed up by his vivid imagination. Can't be taken seriously.

 

[Taz]

I don’t see belief in Arks, talking snakes, people ascending to heaven on golden staircases or animal sacrifice per Santeria as necessarily the best thing to inundate schools with.

And that is precisely why the Bible needs to be taught in school: To move people beyond such a shallow view of the Bible and people of faith.

Suggesting the Bible needs to be taught in public school suggests a need to impose your beliefs on others. Would you propose that schools segregate Christians from non-Christians for Bible lessons? Who would teach the lessons? A Catholic Priest? A Minister? A Chaplain, Pastor?

They should do as they did in the past. There should be a daily reading from the Psalms and or Proverbs. The reading was done by any student who wished to volunteer, as was the flag held and/or the Pledge of Allegiance lead by any student who wished to volunteer. All one needs to read is a McGuffey Reader from the 19th century to see that there was an influence upon students that GOD was someone of consideration and not to simply ignore or never be exposed to... One could certainly come to one's own conclusions; however, such conclusions were not the indoctrinated end result of ignorance or exclusion for "political/legal" reasons on a part of a governmental failure at attempting to keep a wall of separation between education and religious freedom. In essence, science, mathematics, language, religion, philosophy, and art ----- are all a very important part of education that is being undermined and neglected --- because of a very fickle and narrow-minded society, who believe it's money that makes a difference and not character. The government has no business dictating educational practices or the manipulation of funding in order to promote its own humanistic scientological agenda.

Nothing in what you wrote suggests that public schools are not a place for academics while Sunday school is a place for religion.

As to religious freedom, the Constitution guarantees me freedom of religion which is by default, freedom from religion.

No, the Constitution guarantees you only freedom of worship. Which means that you get to choose the way you wish to worship GOD. And since there is freedom of worship, that means that you cannot stifle one's desire to proselytize, anymore then you can stifle one's freedom of speech. And I submit to you that it is impossible to philosophize without expressing moral attitudes that are directly influenced religiously. And so basically, freedom of speech, religion, and thought are stifled in public education because of people like yourself who wrongly feel that expression, thought, and presentation must be limited to only secular humanistic logic/rhetoric publicly.

You can worship your gods as you wish. What you can't do is expect the public school system to become a religious institution.

Prayer in School: 6 Cases Supreme Court Has Ruled On

The court cases challenging prayer in schools have been ongoing since the 1950s and '60s when the U.S. Supreme Court first ruled in favor of maintaining separation between church and state.

www.newsmax.com

I'm not asking public education to be religious. I do expect public education to be considerate and not hostile to religious thought. There have always been people who didn't wish the Bible to be read in school, because they felt to doing such might cause a student to come away with a different idea than what was expressed at home or at a religious institution where they attended. HOWEVER, that said, the truth is what education should strive to influence students to pursue and not to hide truth that some might find offensive. Education should NEVER teach what is unknown as known, and that goes especially for science. To claim the earth is billions of years old is not entirely correct. What should be expressed is that the makeup of various minerals, etc., seem to indicate vast age, but what might such also express, and is such plausible or inexcusable?

The atheistic approach is to believe that nature always existed and that problems are due to a belief in some god. The Christian approach is to believe GOD established nature and that problems are in some way due to a lack of trust in GOD. The honest scientific approach is to accept only as fact what can be observed and repeated. The truth be told, is that there is no possible way to prove that nature always existed, and certainly all problems are not the fault of GOD --- especially, if He doesn't exist ---- but certainly more likely the result of man's beliefs in general (whether "secular" or "religious") can bring about terrible consequences if they contradict nature. So, if GOD established nature, then to do that which contradicts GOD's law, will in fact be harmful to nature as well, and reveal itself in diseases, insufficient food, violence, wars, floods, earthquakes, and every sort of pestilence.

What I've just expressed doesn't seem the sort of thing that should be banned from any logically thinking institution of learning. However, for educators to insist to teach that the earth must be billions of years old, while not allowing consideration of extenuating circumstances ----- is establishing a false perception that everything that can be know is known and that there is nothing unknown which would upset the apple cart.

A few comments.
I don’t see any indication that the public school system is hostile to religion. As to people not wanting the Bible or any other religious text being read in public schools that’s only partly accurate. A student has every right to bring a religious text to school for their own use. The public has a Constitutional right to expect that public schools will not allow religious texts to form the basis of a class syllabus.

What part of the earth not being billions of years old is not correct?


I’m not aware that atheists believe “problems are due to a belief in some god”. I’m an atheist and I believe that problems in people’s lives can be due to everything from circumstances beyond our control to the decisions we make. I think that relying on the gods to fix one’s problems and blaming the gods for one’s poor choices are equally harmful.

Everyone makes mistakes and it’s often difficult to acknowledge that and to then accept responsibility for those mistakes. I don’t see religious people as any better or worse at that vs. non-religious people.

I agree, there is no way to prove that nature always existed. However, science has solid evidence that the laws of physics as we know them, and thus the form of nature, has existed since Planck time or Planck’s Wall which is an infinitesimally small fraction of time since the expansion of the universe. So, we have every reason to accept that nature has existed for nearly as long as the universe has existed, literally to within a fraction of a second.

I have no reason to accept that your god(s) or anyone else’s god(s) had anything to do with the existence of the universe. There are solid reasons to accept that intelligence and sentient biological life can emerge from the universe, as all the elements for that carbon based life are abundant in the universe. Nothing about the universe demonstrates a “need” or requirement to have come from one or more supernatural / metaphysical beings. The religionist has an added burden because you are left with having to account for life / sentient beings that have sprung up out of nature in any event. The other problem with the assertion of gods is that even if one or more gods are at the core of existence, that doesn't support a contention of your particular god(s).

The other problem to be accepted by the religionist is that if one or more gods established nature, then diseases, insufficient food, violence, wars, floods, earthquakes, and every sort of pestilence are, at least in part, a responsibility of those gods. Are the gods responsible for tornadoes? Yes. They established the rotation of the planet and convection which create twisters.

I’m not clear regarding your comment: “...educators to insist to teach that the earth must be billions of years old, while not allowing consideration of extenuating circumstances”. Outside of creation ministries, there is no doubt among the relevant science community about the age of the planet, billions (4.5 +/-) of years old. I suspect by “extenuating circumstances”, you may allude to Biblical liberalism about a 6,000 year old planet. I honestly don’t see that as any sort of argument.

If GOD exists, can HE grow a tree to 100 feet tall in one week, one day, one hour? Well, of course GOD could. And if GOD's intention was to create a hospitable place for man to enjoy, I see no unethical reason why GOD couldn't or shouldn't do such a thing. Do we know with total certainty that GOD had to take billions of years to fabricate this or any other object in the solar system? And could not a worldwide Flood not mix up materials, redistribute them, and sift them to cause some confusion? I know that studies of the Mt. St. Helen's eruption answered quite a lot of such speculation to the affirmative. There have been studies on hydraulic sorting that have proved to be very eye opening. The Grand Canyon didn't need 100's of millions of years to form. Deserts can form as the result of being inundated by silt or sand --- why not from a collection of flood eroded minerals that has been scoured away from other areas?

And since an atheist most certainly can explain his formula for how nature could have brought about things, it shouldn't be left to the "Christian" student to reveal possible issues, when there are most likely Christian educators who already have their misgivings but are unable to elude to such convictions without a serious threat to their tenure.

I agree. If gods exist they can do all the things you describe. However, the burden of proof for the existence of a god or gods is entirely on the shoulders of the person making the affirmative claim. It is possible to demonstrate the existence of something. It is not possible to demonstrate the non-existence of something.

It is a profound discomfort to traditional religions that as science has progressed, the opposite face of the coin has been the fact that gods have less and less to do. While science cannot "disprove" god, it has certainly eliminated evidences for gods one at a time.

I agree that a worldwide Flood could mix up materials, redistribute them. However, there being no evidence of a worldwide flood makes that argument untenable.

The Grand Canyon happened so Noah could run the rapids in his boat is not an argument. What you're referring to are youtube videos by Steve Austin representing the ICR who has some some rather "laugh till you cry" notions of geology. Austin has been an active promoter of a Noah's flood interpretation of the geology of the Grand Canyon.

It's just awful,

Consider the following: The Age of the Earth - The Grand Canyon as a Creationist Clock: Ryan McGillivray

So it's a fantasy story not based on reality. So what?

 

[irosie91]

Seems like something of a dilemma if you want to use the Bible in history classes in public school.

I do not wish to use the Bible in history classes. Haven't a clue where you came up with that. In public schools, history classes cover World History (Bible does not cover World History) and US History (something else the Bible does not cover.

It would be in violation of the establishment clause to use the Bible for course material in a public school. I can't think of any course not available to students that the Bible could be used for except Christian proselytizing.

LITERATURE I see no violation in using parts of the bible as LITERATURE----- -----I read the ramayana for social studies----in the ninth grade----is that ok?
actually it was a kinda juvenile translation. I do not do sanskrit. The ODYSSEY could be considered a
scriptural writing, too. I also read the DIVINE COMEDY in ninth grade--------is that ok?

 

[Taz]

Seems like something of a dilemma if you want to use the Bible in history classes in public school.

I do not wish to use the Bible in history classes. Haven't a clue where you came up with that. In public schools, history classes cover World History (Bible does not cover World History) and US History (something else the Bible does not cover.

It would be in violation of the establishment clause to use the Bible for course material in a public school. I can't think of any course not available to students that the Bible could be used for except Christian proselytizing.

LITERATURE I see no violation in using parts of the bible as LITERATURE----- -----I read the ramayana for social studies----in the ninth grade----is that ok?
actually it was a kinda juvenile translation. I do not do sanskrit. The ODYSSEY could be considered a
scriptural writing, too. I also read the DIVINE COMEDY in ninth grade--------is that ok?

I was reading my dad’s Playboys in 9th grade.

 

[irosie91]

Seems like something of a dilemma if you want to use the Bible in history classes in public school.

I do not wish to use the Bible in history classes. Haven't a clue where you came up with that. In public schools, history classes cover World History (Bible does not cover World History) and US History (something else the Bible does not cover.

It would be in violation of the establishment clause to use the Bible for course material in a public school. I can't think of any course not available to students that the Bible could be used for except Christian proselytizing.

LITERATURE I see no violation in using parts of the bible as LITERATURE----- -----I read the ramayana for social studies----in the ninth grade----is that ok?
actually it was a kinda juvenile translation. I do not do sanskrit. The ODYSSEY could be considered a
scriptural writing, too. I also read the DIVINE COMEDY in ninth grade--------is that ok?

I was reading my dad’s Playboys in 9th grade.

I read playboys back then------off the rack along with Ladieis Home Journal There were short stories